United States v. Cuauthemoc Sanchez-Lopez ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-1690
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Cuauthemoc Sanchez-Lopez, also known as Luis Picon Sanches
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
    ____________
    Submitted: June 26, 2013
    Filed: July 1, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cuauthemoc Sanchez-Lopez appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the
    district court1 imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to an
    1
    The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    immigration offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the district court abused its
    discretion by declining to vary downward even further.
    Upon careful review, this court concludes that Sanchez-Lopez’s appeal falls
    within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement, that he entered
    into both the appeal waiver and the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and
    that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal waiver in this
    case. See United States v. Jennings, 
    662 F.3d 988
    , 990 (8th Cir. 2011) (court should
    enforce appeal waiver if both waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly
    and voluntarily, appeal is within waiver’s scope, and no miscarriage of justice would
    result); see also United Stated v. Azure, 
    571 F.3d 769
    , 772 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo
    review of whether defendant waived right to appeal sentence). An independent
    review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), reveals no
    nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
    Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1690

Judges: Loken, Melloy, Benton

Filed Date: 7/1/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024